Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
We are never going to agree, because i do not think Magical Darkness is anything like regular darkness (which is the absence of light, not something which spreads). And I think the spell description of magical Darkness is impossible to read in a way that would cause a reasonable reader to think it was simply regular darkness.
The problem is not how the rules for darkness describe magical darkness. The problem is with how the rules for darkness describes regular darkness, because they're just wrong. You can see the moon because light reflects off the moon and reaches your eyes - light passes through that space between you and the moon. Light cannot pass through the space of magical darkness, which is why it is opaque (and nonmagical darkness is not). Similarly, you can see a campfire from 300' away, even though it doesn't shed light nearly that far in game, because the game rules for darkness are wrong for nonmagical darkness, and we all know you can see a light from far away, so long as nothing is obstructing it.
So for regular darkness, 'the rules are not a physics simulator' kicks in, and we override the rules to let us see the moon and a far away campfire, even when the rules tell us we can't, because the rules are obviously wrong and doing a poor job simulating physics. But Magical Darkness is magic, its physics are the physics the game gives it, and there's no basis for invoking 'the rules are not a physics simulator', so it is, in fact, opaque.
Main Text:
Rules Glossary:
Yeah, I see what you're saying. I just don't even agree that that's a valid RAW interpretation in the first place. In the main text for Heavily Obscured areas, a writing style is used where a word is given followed by a definition for that word. That definition doesn't match the common dictionary definition, so it's an important clarification. The word itself is not even used in the Rules Glossary -- only the definition is used there since that's the mechanically significant portion of the rule. See above where I've quoted these things directly from the rules.
I disagree with all of this logic. The concept of cover defines itself -- this involves obstacles which provide protection.
Main Text:
Rules Glossary:
In fact, it's the object that's not required. An obstacle is required.
There is overlap between the concepts of an obstacle and an object, but it's not a subset relationship as you've proposed above. Instead, some objects are obstacles, and some are not. At the same time, some obstacles are objects and some are not.
The fact that Half Cover is offered by "another creature or an object that covers at least half of the target" does not mean that those are the only things that provide Half Cover. An obstacle such as a wall which covers at least half of the target can also offer Half Cover. In addition, in my opinion, "an object that covers at least half of the target" only actually offers Half Cover if that object is an obstacle. Thus, a thin curtain or a thin pane of glass might not qualify -- this would be determined by the DM.
This. The root problem is the statement
Mundane darkness is not opaque. It is transparent. It indicates a lack of illumination, not any effect that blocks passage of light. Heavy fog and dense foliage, however, are opaque; light cannot pass through it. Thus, there are zero ways of interpreting that sentence that don't cause something to behave nonsensically.
People rule 0 mundane darkness, because it's quite obvious that it isn't actually opaque. Unfortunately, that's not helpful for supernatural darkness. The darkness spell behaves like anti-light, annihilating light it comes in contact with, and we have no idea how something like that would actually behave.
The darkness created by the Darkness spell only "spreads" because the magical effect itself spreads. That's normal behavior for any AoE spell effect. The actual darkness is just sort of attached to this while it is spreading. The actual effect that's created is just mundane darkness -- it's just being magically placed in a certain location, and it magically gets there in a certain manner.
Here is the thing: Not all magical darkness is the same. The magical darkness that is created by the Darkness spell just isn't what you think. However, the magical darkness created by Hunger of Hadar, for example, is closer to your version of magical darkness. That particular magical darkness explicitly causes the blinded condition to creatures that are actually located within the AoE, whereas the Darkness spell doesn't do that, for example. Magical darkness only differs from ordinary darkness in the ways in which the effect which creates it says so explicitly.
The rules tell us that we can though. The rules work just fine; they are just often misinterpreted.
The rules for ordinary darkness just tell us that it creates a Heavily Obscured area, so that area is obscured. This just means that a creature has the blinded condition when trying to see something there, because that area is obscured.
Meanwhile, the Line of Sight rule is based on whether or not "an object or effect that blocks vision—such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog" is in the way of being able to see something. Every such effect would have to be ruled on by the DM on a case-by-case basis -- so if a DM doesn't think that ordinary Darkness is capable of blocking vision then it doesn't.
The rules specifically tell us heavily obscured areas are opaque. It's been quoted by someone else above. The problem is that's just wrong for regular darkness, and only for regular darkness.
And the magical darkness rules say it, the magical darkness, cannot be illuminated. That means no light can pass into or through it. It's quite explicit. And there's no reason to say it cannot be illuminated if it works just like regular darkness, because regular darkness can be illuminated. It's why light can pass through it.
And you're expecting way to much precision in wording from a rules team that cannot be bothered to write in precise language, nor even template language for certain kinds of effects, for your reading of the difference between Darkness and Hunger of Hadar. In this specific effect, they describe the same consequence in two different ways (Darkness says it cannot be illuminated), but it's the same consequence (you cannot see into, out of, or through it with regular vision).
Again, that word is used in that rule in a way that is not consistent with the most common dictionary definition. Instead, it uses the definition that the rule provides for it.
Opaque area: You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there.
Which adjective would you have used to describe an area which causes the Blinded condition when trying to see something there? It's not trivial to come up with a better one. I'm sure that the designers just picked one and didn't think that people would get quite so hung up on it. It doesn't really matter anyway. It's basically flavor text -- it does not appear in the Rules Glossary description of the concept at all.
You are drawing a conclusion that the text does not say. Mechanically, all this means is that if you light a torch such that the normal bright light and dim light radii from the torch overlap with some portion of the Darkness magical effect -- those overlapping areas do not become bright light or dim light as they normally would -- they remain at the darkness category of illumination. Whether or not light can pass into or through the area has nothing to do with that.
Rules and features do what they say, and a RAW discussion is about what the rules actually say.
The Darkness spell creates darkness that causes darkvision to work incorrectly and which cannot be illuminated by light of insufficient strength. That's it. Whether or not your regular vision can see into, out of, or through it is no different than how it works when interacting with ordinary darkness. If it was different in this regard, it would say so. The Hunger of Hadar spell description says so.
There is no need for such a terminology in the first place. I would have just had two entries:
Then decide whether abilities are supposed to be opaque or non-opaque, and use the correct terminology (or possibly both; the darkness spell could specify that it's both darkness and heavily obscured, if that's the intended effect).
Darkness is opaque and it's a problem as we know. Mundane darkness & light should behave differently than magical darkness, dense fog etc but the rules don't make any distinction unfortunately and it's been discussed in lenght. A Lightly Obscured areas is not opaque while a Heavily Obscured areas is opaque.
You parse the rules and change punctuation, this is not how it's written. There no : but a . after the word opaque and the next sentence, yet you combine them when in fact they're two seperate sentences. It's not the Opaque area but Obscured area. The actual wording is:
This. Also, opaque is not capitalized. It is never defined. It is not a term-of-art, but in its normal colloquial English usage.
And we can tell, because when we check the rest of the rules, we see opaque is used in its normal meaning of not being see-through. Prismatic Walls are opaque. Opaque objects can block Light/Darkness/Daylight emanations. Leomund's Tiny Hut is opaque from the outside. All of these uses are colloquial English, and means light cannot pass through them, and thus you cannot see into or through them.
At the risk of being pedantic (and pretty much any RAW argument eventually devolves to this point), a wall is an object. So is a person. The may not be Objects with a capital O (i.e., something explicitly defined by the rules), but they absolutely are objects, with a lowercase o. If it can be seen, touched, or otherwise perceived with the senses then it is an object (Merriam-Webster).
At extreme levels of pedantry it can be argued that anything capable of receiving a verb (e.g., The wall fell over) is grammatically an object (leading to direct objects and indirect objects in sentences). However, that can lead to ephemeral objects (e.g., It was a strange thought). One could still use that definition, however, and then argue that the object in question fails to cover (as in provide protection to) the target.
By and large, though, it seems like we are on the same page. Cover is provided by something (whether you want to argue that it is an object or obstacle) that is capable of repelling whatever is trying to effect the target. (i.e., A transparent bowl is not capable of repelling magical Darkness due to the implications in the description, so it does not count as Cover in that context).
Suppose I am playing in a campaign where the daytime sky is the same color as what we have in the real world. My character approaches an exclusive club where they are very particular about the appearance of the creatures who are allowed to enter. The requirement is that the creature must be the same color as the daytime sky. Flashback a few sessions . . . during a somber campfire scene after a party member was killed, I informed the DM: "My character is blue". So now, I ask the guard who is outside in front of the entrance to the club to allow me to enter. Does he allow me to enter? Why or why not?
Dense fog does behave differently than darkness. The rules do make a distinction between them. I agree that it has been discussed at length, which is . . . surprising.
That's true -- you don't have the Blinded condition when trying to see something there, I agree.
The punctuation does matter at all. Not even a little bit.
This section of the rules uses an extremely common writing style. To transition away from a previous point of discussion and introduce a new one, a topic sentence is written. Then, the meaning of that first sentence is detailed in the sentences which follow. This is abundantly clear from the context of the overall content and reiterated by the total absence of the term "opaque" from the Rules Glossary entry.
The meaning of how the word is being used in this context appears in the very next sentence after it is used. It's not difficult to find it. It's the very next sentence.
You forgot Wall of Fire! Yes! These are excellent examples of how the same word can be used in a different way amidst different context (such as, to describe physical things) than how it is used to describe a particular type of area (not a physical thing). I agree. And yes, this is the whole point.
Nope.
I'm not so sure that we're on the same page on this.
First of all, the concept of Cover (providing a degree of protection / making a target more difficult to harm) has absolutely nothing at all to do with "covering" an object with something opaque. These rules just happen to be using the same word, but in two totally different ways and with two totally different meanings (. . . oh, wow. I'm having a really intense feeling of Deja Vu . . . Have we been discussing this exact same concept somewhere else?? Weird . . .)
However, just in case there was some question about whether or not a Darkness or Light or Daylight spell is able to spread through a translucent but sturdy wall -- it cannot. The magical effect cannot bypass Cover as per the rules for spellcasting, particularly the rules for AoE spell effects. It doesn't matter what the magical effect creates, it's blocked by Cover.
Since this is a tangent, I'm stepping in again to say that this doesn't sound right to me.
Areas of Effect created by spells are part of the spell's Area of Effect. For example, with Darkness, it doesn't matter whether the origin is a point, creating a Sphere, or an object, creating an Emanation. Both options cover an area called an Area of Effect and both are part of the spell's effects.
How dense fog behave differently than darkness and which rules make a distinction between them exactly? Opinion aside, just quote the rule please.
Because they're both cited as example of Heavily Obscured area being opaque the rules below;